On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Paraphrasing [1]:
>> When specified via angle, the angle can be understood as both the direction
>> ("toward the <angle>") and the ending point ("ends at <angle>").
>>
>> Paraphrasing [2] and [3]:
>> When specified via keyword, the keyword can be understood as both opposite
>> direction ("away from the <keyword(s)>") and the starting point ("starts at
>> <keyword>").
>>
>> Is it intentional that these two ways of specifying gradient-line are
>> opposite?
>
> I don't think they are. In [1], the angle determines the starting AND ending
> points. In [2] and [3], the ending point (and thus the direction) is
> determined by the starting point. I see no inconsistency.
This was brought up during the ftf, and I think it's a valid point.
In my head (and I expect in others'), when I think of what angle to
use for a gradient I do so by imagining a compass rose, with 0deg at
the top, 90deg to the right, etc. I then set the gradient angle by
choosing which angle I want the gradient to point toward.
Similarly, if I imagine keywords, I do so with 'top' at the top,
'right' at the right, etc. Now, though, I have to reverse how I deal
with my mental image - if I want the gradient to point up, I don't
choose 'top', I choose 'bottom'.
I'm not sure if this is an important enough disconnect to justify
changing the keywords, but we brainstormed it a bit at the ftf. I
don't think we came up with any set of directional keywords that was
sufficiently decent to work as replacements, though. If anyone has
any suggestions, please speak up! The current front-runner is
'upward'/'rightward'/etc, which isn't very good.
~TJ